EWG News Roundup (9/21): Asbestos in U.S. Schools, House Members’ Votes on Toxic Chemical Bills and More

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency’s internal investigative watchdog reported that the agency has to take the required and necessary steps under federal law to protect children from the dangers of asbestos exposure in the nation’s public and private schools.

The more than year-long investigation by the office of the Inspector General found that EPA has largely ignored its responsibilities under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986, or AHERA. The act requires, under the oversight of the agency, that all public school districts and private schools regularly inspect buildings for asbestos and take appropriate abatement actions when necessary.

“Turning a blind eye to the risks to children from asbestos at school is tantamount to installing cigarette machines in the hallways,” said EWG President Ken Cook.

The Environmental Working Group Action Fund, EWG’s sister political organization, released the first-ever report scoring every member of the House of Representatives for their votes on legislation in support of President Trump’s pro-chemical industry agenda. The analysis found that 140 House members voted against toxic chemical safeguards every time. By contrast, 149 members consistently voted for chemical safety protections.

EWG Action Fund selected 17 bills and amendments that lawmakers voted on during the last two sessions of Congress to score each member’s votes. The legislation included proposals to gut health and safety protections for chemicals, allow the discharge of pesticides into water, block local governments from prohibiting pesticide use at playgrounds and parks, and inform the public about the risks of toxic chemicals.

A new report by Duke University scientists found that residents of communities near industrial-scale hog farms in North Carolina face an increased risk of potentially deadly diseases. The new study compared communities without big hog farms to communities with the highest hog farm density, and found 30 percent more deaths among patients with kidney disease, 50 percent more deaths among patients with anemia, and 130 percent more deaths among patients with a blood bacterial infection. The communities near the heaviest concentration of large hog farms also had a greater risk of infant mortality and lower birth weight.

For coverage on these developments and more, here’s some news you can use going into the weekend

Hurricane Floyd in 1999 was a worst-case scenario, causing structural damage to six waste pits and flooding 55 others, according to the North Carolina Pork Council. Tens of thousands of hogs perished. After the flooding receded, water sampling revealed dangerous levels of E. Coli and other bacteria associated with food poisoning, the Waterkeeper Alliance and the Environmental Working Group say.

In 2016, the Waterkeeper Alliance and the Environmental Working Group released an analysis showing that the North Carolina CAFO industry produces 10 billion gallons of wet animal waste each year in over 4,000 waste pits—enough to fill 15,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Typical hog confinements, like the white buildings on the right in that photo, hold about 2,000 hogs each. According to the Environmental Working Group, there are 586,092 hogs in Wayne County and 229 manure lagoons.

North Carolina's hog and other concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, produce nearly 10 billion gallons of fecal waste a year, according to the Environmental Working Group and Waterkeeper Alliance. An estimated 3.4 million chickens and 5,500 hogs died in the flooding, according to preliminary estimates from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

As the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Waterkeeper Alliance reported in 2016, every year North Carolina's CAFOs produce almost 10 billion gallons of fecal waste, enough to fill more than 15,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. Much of this waste is stored in open-air pits, then sprayed on farm fields as fertilizer. Reprint of EWG News & Analysis article.

More than 100 House lawmakers consistently voted for legislation to weaken safeguards against toxic chemicals, according to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund released Tuesday. Reprinted by MSN.

The political arm of the Environmental Working Group, known as EWG Action Fund, released a report this morning grading every House lawmaker on chemical policy and chemical safety votes. The action fund focused on 17 bills and amendments, which members voted on during both the 115th and 114th Congresses. An analysis from EWG Action found that 140 lawmakers voted against safeguards for toxic chemicals in every vote, while 149 members consistently voted for chemical safety protections.

The Environmental Working Group Action Fund has released the first-ever report scrutinizing how every member of the U.S. House of Representatives has voted on chemical policy and safety. The results—140 members voted against chemical safeguards every time while 149 members usually voted for safeguards.

Like other green congressional ratings, the Environmental Working Group Action Fund's analysis found a sharp partisan divide in voting patterns. Out of 435 voting members of the House, 140 Republicans backed all 17 measures that EWG's political arm claimed would weaken toxic chemical safeguards.

The EWG Action Fund report, which comes in the midst of campaigning for the high-stakes mid-term US election in November, scores lawmakers on 17 bills and amendments voted on during the current and most recent sessions of Congress. Included in these are several regulatory reform measures, legislation addressing pollution, ozone standards and pesticides, as well as bills addressing the EPA’s science policy, including the HONEST Act.

The Environmental Working Group has released its EWG Action Fund’s Toxic Chemical Policy Scorecard. This report shows the voting record, on toxic pollution votes, “of every member of the U.S. House of Representatives” — in effect, it creates a “toxic chemical policy scorecard so you can know where your member stands,” says its website, www.ewg.org.

The scorecard released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group gave Reps. Ron DeSantis and Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, a 0 for their voting habits on environmental policies. Rep. Brian Mast, R-Palm City, received a score of 13 out of 100.

The Environmental Working Group Action Fund released a report scoring every member of the House of Representatives on their voting record for legislation in support of President Trump’s pro-chemical industry agenda. The Sierra Club worked with the EWG on many chemical safety and environmental toxic issues.

The measure is one of several “anti-environmental provisions” in the bill “that threaten public health,” according to a letter from 107 House members. The Republican-backed attempt to clamp down on local governments also flies in the face of the party’s rhetoric, according to Scott Faber, vice president of governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word for Republicans working to block local public health ordinances designed to protect children,” said Faber. “It’s a party that more or less exists to empower local government to make decisions.”

And, really, why should our legislators turn their noses up at federal money? After all, the Environmental Working Group reports that Idaho farmers received about $3.65 billion in subsidies between 1995 and 2016. With 24 percent of our legislators actively involved in agribusiness, and many of our state policymakers involved in making money from agriculture, it’s little surprise that these folks are perfectly happy to suck on the government teat.

Two years ago, Vermont farmers got $6.34 million (almost all of it for dairy) according to the Environmental Working Group, which calculated that Vermont farmers got $317 million over the previous 20 years. And still the dairy farms are not making money.

Meant to protect the state's roughly 300,000 licensed cosmetologists and 130,000 manicurists, the new law had the backing of entities including the Environmental Working Group (EWG). For instance, formaldehyde-based hair-straightening treatments pose a health risk to workers and clients because they emit toxic fumes while being applied, warned EWG in a 2011 report.

A map of articles reporting algal blooms across the country by the Environmental Working Group reveals a widespread problem. But that algae doesn’t seem to be contaminating Indiana’s drinking water as much as it is in other states.

A report released by the Environmental Working Group in 2016 showed something different. Many of the products which claim to be safe for the environment along with health are not what they seem. They contain some chemicals which do not quite go with the description.

“What we’re most concerned about is the overall [chemical] body burden,” says Nneka Leiba, the director of the Environmental Working Group’s Healthy Living Science program. “Companies hear our position on that and sometimes they agree and sometimes they don’t.” Some watchdog groups have become powerful in challenging the mainstream beauty establishment on this issue; the EWG, established 25 years ago as a nonprofit to look at pesticides and food, is arguably the most powerful one.

In fact, one in 12 beauty and personal products marketed to African-American women in the US contain highly dangerous ingredients, according to a 2016 report by the Environmental Working Group. There is no such data available for the UK, but many of the hair products used by black British women have been shipped over from the US.

EWG's Skin Deep database currently contains information and online hazard assessments for over 74,000 products. Staff scientists compare the ingredients on product labels and websites to information in nearly 60 toxicity and regulatory databases. EWG gives a low, moderate or high score on concerns like a product's overall toxicity and its ability to cause cancer, developmental or reproductive harm.

The court, however, found that co-plaintiffs the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) did not sufficiently support their claim of standing in the suit. They have been dismissed from the case. The suit is being heard in the US District Court for the southern district of New York.

According to the Environmental Working Group, natural flavor is the fourth most common ingredient in their database of food. It falls only behind salt, water, and sugar. So if you’re eating any type of processed food, chances are, you’re eating natural flavor.

Originally aired on 9/17/2018 Dr. Oz gives an exclusive inside look into how and why weed killer is getting into your food. Find out the truth about this chemical and if it can harm you and your family. Guests: Mark Schatzker, Scott Faber

TCPalm: LTE – Just say no to glyphosate in Lake O
In this country, the spraying of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, on food crops grew from 11,000 tons in 1992 to 88,000 tons 25 years later, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. How did it gain such wide acceptance and why is it being sprayed on millions of acres of wheat, soy, corn, sugar and cotton crops, among others? It’s turning up in cereals such as Cheerios and Lucky Charms, according to the Environmental Working Group. It’s in our air and water.

According to federal data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, the produce most likely to retain pesticides (a group known as the “Dirty Dozen”) includes strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, grapes, peaches, cherries, pears, tomatoes, celery, potatoes, sweet bell peppers and hot peppers; you can further reduce pesticide risk by peeling these before consumption. Reprinted by The Baltimore Sun.

But some plants accumulate more chemicals than others. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) has researched pesticide accumulation in various conventionally grown fruits and vegetables, and has published lists of the most contaminated that should be avoided (titled The Dirty Dozen), as well as the least contaminated and safest (The Clean Fifteen).

For guidance on produce, Dr. Pallav refers patients to the Environmental Working Group’s “Dirty Dozen,” meaning the 12 fruits and vegetables with the highest loads of pesticide residues, and “Clean Fifteen,” meaning the 15 that have few, if any, residues detected.

EWG Tap Water Database a Handy Tool for Drinking Water Stories -- For environmental journalists, drinking water safety stories are a reliable topic for getting audience interest. A nonpartisan, nonprofit group offers a database that makes finding such stories a lot easier. The Environmental Working Group’s Tap Water Database has been around for a while, but it has gotten better — it’s now easier to use and with more data.

PFAS contamination has been found in at least 172 sites in 40 states, according to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that tracks pollution and supports tougher standards. More than 1,500 drinking water systems serving 110 million people may be contaminated with PFOA or PFOS, it said in May.